- 708
- United States
Age and maturity are major factors when making opinions about the types of thing happening in the gaming world right now....
For example, to build a drift car, i by no means consider it a grind to participate in each drift event once or twice while driving from one to the other accross a beautiful map. That is playing and enjoying the game.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Hot tip: people won't put much stock in your argument if you have to resort to namecalling right off the bat (or strawmen, for that matter).
Developers make a buck — a few of them, actually — off the list price of the game. I'm not one to complain about DLC costing money, as I'm more than willing to give a dev money for continuing to support its game, but artificially extending a game's grind to try and lure players to drop money reeks of greed. In BF2's case, that was 40 hours of play time to unlock just one hero (of which there are many).
From what I've gathered from the various articles and communities talking about it, people aren't asking for everything given to them for free, despite what you suggest. It's about finding a balance: if your game requires multiple hundreds of hours to fully unlock, how many players are going to stick with it versus just give up and move on to something that feels less like work?
The simple question: what's wrong with the plain old credits-for-parts system?* Why do players need to settle for gambling-esque random prizes?
* - yes, you can still buy parts in-game. They're just comparatively expensive, and required if you want to advance through the races.
There was nothing wrong with the credits for parts system. I too wish they would've stuck with it. But why do players "need to settle" as you put it? Because that's the way they designed the game. You either settle for this system, or you don't play. Meanwhile, gamers can complain to EA about it, and that may or may not achieve results. Regardless, the choice remains - either play or don't. My argument is simply "Why not focus on the positives and try to enjoy it?"
In contrasting my own experience with gaming and how it used to be, I was trying to draw attention to the demands that are placed on developers and publishers nowadays which didn't used to exist. People want more and more content and they want it to be complex and they want it exactly how they envision it to be. The internet has given gamers the capability of being vocal about these demands, which also didn't used to exist. Yet when the devs and pubs try to deliver this stuff and charge for it, they are met with extreme vitriol, as if the public can't believe they would dare do such a thing. It's interesting because it's a simple concept that exists in nearly every form of business, and yet the game industry is expected to somehow be different. The same person who gets online and complains that EA shouldn't have MT's (essentially an up-charge for more content) is quite likely the same person who walks into Starbucks and has no problem paying extra for the extra content in his coffee. - That's what I find silly and said "They want everything for free." - Of course it was an exaggeration.
Like Dairyworker said, I'm not trying to defend the practices of publishers, but I also can't blame them. Supply and demand - The manufacturer can charge what people are willing to pay. If people keep paying for more content, or pay to keep from "grinding," then games will still include it. If people stop paying, they will change. This is literally the concept of nearly every business imaginable.
Change will only ultimately come from financial gain/loss. People will have to let their points be made with wallets, not words.